daniel_taylor

The 85mm may be too short for the sport you mention. A 135 f/2L or 200 f/2.8 would probably serve you well in that situation. Not sure you would see much difference between 85 and 100, that amounts to walking a few feet. And the 100 f/2 is not as sharp wide open as the 85.

 

No, 160mm equiv or longer is not "too long" for portraits. 85-135 is considered the classic portrait range, but good portraits can be had as high as 300mm.

I have never seen any degradation to my images from using Hoya S-HMC UV filters (I'm talking about times I've taken them off to compare). I have, however, prior to getting the filters, had to clean salt spray, dust, sand, etc. from my lenses.

 

Now filters sit on my lenses 24/7, along with lens hoods. I would rather clean/replace the filters than the front elements, and heaven forbid I drop a $600-$1100 lens, I would much rather replace the filter.

 

In the case of one lens (Canon 17-40L; yes, I know this is Nikon forum) the filter completes the weather and dust sealing.

There's nothing wrong with using in camera sharpening (or the other parameters for that matter). Run some tests (including prints at different sizes), and if you like one of the presets, use it.

 

Regarding the film comments, scanned film requires considerably more work, especially in the color department. But with film you can find a lab that will do the work for you. This isn't much different from letting a set of computer parameters work for you though.

"I think the 17-40/L and 70-200/2.8 L are going to get most of the pictures you could want to take. In my opinion not much lost between 41 and 69mm. So spend a little more and get the 5D and the 17-40. You could grab a 50/1.8 for about $75 while you are at it."

 

What John said. You're stuck in the trap of thinking that you need every mm of focal length between one extreme and another. You don't.

 

A 5D and 17-40L would be a great match to your two L telephoto lenses, and pretty much cover all your needs except extreme low light. A $75 50mm will cover that. You don't "need" anything in the missing range that walking a few steps can't accomplish.

 

No offense, but I sometimes think it's funny when I see photographers trying to organize a lens purchase that covers every mm from x to y. Do you realize that you could accomplish pretty much everything you want with 3-4 good primes? Not saying you should only buy primes, but you don't need to spend tons of money trying to cover every mm twice over with L zooms.

 

The 30D is a great camera. But if I were choosing between it and the 5D, I would go for the 5D. Even if that ment I was missing a few mm in the middle or (gasp) had to buy a prime.

Give some thought and research to print stability. The best printers in this regard use pigment inks, like the Epson PictureMate (4x6 only) and higher end R series printers (R800 or higher). Dye ink printers can be OK in this area, but typically have some weakness that can compromise their advertised print life, such as being susceptible to ozone induced fading.

Show me a photographer who has to judge an image by the equipment that made it, and I'll show you a snapshooter who has no business calling himself/herself a photographer, and no sense of art.

"We already know there is light fall off at the edges on full frame digital sensors - this is not up for debate."

 

We already know there is light fall off at the edges on 35mm film - THIS is not up for debate.

 

What IS up for debate is whether or not the light fall off is worse with full frame digital sensors than with 35mm film. I'll admit to not having tried a direct test. But every image I've seen referenced as an example of "digital" light fall off was no worse than slides from my film days that clearly had vignetting from a zoom wide open at the wide end. And guess what? Seems the "digital" examples also tend to be shot using zooms wide open at the wide end.

 

Who would have thought?

"However, if you want to get a prime for a DX format camera, I recommend the 35/2 AF-D. It's almost as good as the 50 mm and offers the field of view that a 50 mm would give on 35 mm film."

 

For learning, I second that response. You should really get a 35mm. 50mm on a DX camera will be a mild tele, almost a 85mm in full frame terms. The "mid point" 50mm full frame/35mm DX is better as a first prime.

"Obviously to me, the main drawback is that you actually have to move in closer or step away from the subject to compose - no zooming. I imagine this makes composing your image quite difficult."

 

The fact that you made that statement pretty much explains why you should pick up a 50mm prime. And then put your zoom away for about 6 months.

 

Unless you can't move or move quickly enough, you do not compose by zooming back and forth until your subject fills the frame. You choose your focal length to achieve the look you want before you ever put camera to eye and position yourself relative to your subject (your position being something you visualized, with some accuracy, at the same time you chose your focal length, again to achieve a specific look/effect).

 

Having a 50mm prime on your camera will force you to learn the look of that focal length and how to vary that look using your position relative to subject. It will start you on the path to understanding the focal lengths on your zoom as more than just a convenient way to avoid walking.

 

Not to mention that the 50mm will let you shoot in 1/4 to 1/8 the light of your zoom. Do you want a deer in the headlights on-camera-mini-flash shot when light gets low? Or do you want a dreamy, romantic shot by existing light?

 

You should spend some time in the Learn > Tutorial section of this web site. Philip has plenty to say about fast primes vs. slow zooms and the effects of different focal lengths vs. compsure-by-zoom.

I'm surprised to hear that 400UC is grainy, I remember Supra 400 offering very tight grain.

 

But, if you insist on sticking to one film, you're going to have to pick 400-something, and at 400 you're much better off with neg film than slide.

Given that I've been away from film for a while, take this with a grain of salt, but...one film, one ISO (sure you want to do this? no Provia or Velvia landscapes?), can handle >8x10...I'm thinking Kodak 400UC. I say that based on my experience with the old Supra 400, knowing it evolved from that line. It was one of my favorite films grain and sharpness wise.

 

As for reducing the appearance of grain, you want a correct exposure. Longer/shorter with corresponding apertures to produce an identical exposure in both cases should not make any difference in grain. The film receives the same amount of light either way. Underexposing, however, will make grain worse.

"IS for sports photography is also not "required" since you have to shoot at high shutter speeds anyway to stop action."

 

Experience has taught me otherwise. Camera shake can negatively impact images even at high shutter speeds, especially at the end of a long day of shooting. If you're shooting in light that demands 1/500 - 1/1500 at f/4 and your camera shake happens to move against the direction of the target you're trying to freeze, you've dramatically increased the "speed" of that target from the pov of the sensor, and you *will* get motion blur.

 

"If you really have to justify an IS lens for sports it is for panning high speed subjects but again this can be mastered without IS. IS is for those times when you just do not have enough light to stop the motion of the lens and you do not want to use a tripod, assuming of course that you do have enough light to stop the motion of the lens with IS on."

 

At 300mm IS is for anytime you are not on a tripod. Yeah, you can squeeze off "one off" 300mm shots at higher shutter speeds. Try keeping that up, frame after frame, at the end of a long day, with your body movements not affecting a shot, especially when the good ones have to go 16x20. Doesn't happen.

 

"For the price of the IS option on a 300/4 IS you could buy a real macro lens!"

 

Never the less, if you're interested in close up photography (not quite true macro), this lens does very well.

 

And I still can't see grabbing a used one vs. new with warranty for the price difference we're discussing. This is a fairly expensive piece of glass. If something is off or out of alignment on a warranty model, you send it back to Canon for repair. What do you do used?

 

Just order the IS new and be done with it. The first time you look through the viewfinder and see just how much shake occurs at that magnification, then press the shutter half way and see the frame freeze, you'll know it was worth it.

"When I need a tripod, I really need a tripod and IS is not going to help much at 1/2 to 4 seconds."

 

One of the great uses of the 300 f/4L is hand-held sports photography, where IS is huge.

If you're looking to replace your 28-135, replace it with the 24-105. This is digital, one stop is one click of the ISO dial and maybe a quick Noise Ninja filter in Photoshop. And that's only when you need extra shutter speed to arrest subject movement because all the other times IS will cover you for more than that one stop.

 

Since you have full frame, the 17-40 is only a contender if you're looking to keep your 28-135 and go wider. If you do wish to go wider, look at some of the primes out there. I like my 17-40 on a 1.6x crop digital, but full frame the corners can get really soft.

 

I do agree with the advantage lists posted for wider aperture glass, I just don't see why, if those things are important to a photographer, that photographer should settle at f/2.8. If low light shooting, background blur, and low light AF accuracy are paramount, you don't stop at a f/2.8 zoom. You get f/1.x primes. I'm not saying the 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't have its place and uses, but I think in your case you would be better served by the 24-105.

(Your title says 300, but then you discuss the 70-200; I assume you're asking about the 300.)

 

The 300 f/4L IS is one of the best performing lenses in Canon's lineup. Is the non-IS a bit sharper? Yes, but you're still talking about two lenses at the top of the list. You would have to be looking for the difference in a controlled test to find it. (Note that Photodo.com seemed to get a bad copy. Their rating is well below the actual performance of this lens and Canon's MTF chart for it, just in case that's what's stearing you towards the non-IS.)

 

The 300 f/4L IS is new with warranty and the IS is worth it on this lens. I would go for the IS version.

Yes. If you have the money, consider the 20D or 30D. Better body and user interface.

"You'll note that comments have been made about printing. The D2X vs 6x7 film mentioned print differences as well. You also mentioned the difficulty of inkjet laying down more than 300dpi.....well, with an 11MP 1Ds sensor, you're at 135dpi on a 20x30."

 

Who the heck is discussing 20x30??? The thread has been about smaller sizes (8x10, A4) from the beginning. And when did I say that MF couldn't edge out a 1Ds at larger print sizes? I believe I said it had the potential to numerous times in this thread. Go back, re-read.

 

"Which takes us back to your reading difficulty and poor eyesight."

 

Screw you. You're the one who can't follow a thread. If you can't follow a thread and COMPREHEND what people are saying, then stay out of it completely.

 

While we're at it, the "samples" you're referencing have been pointed out before to be invalid before. Something is wrong with the 1Ds sample, either with the process used to resize it or with the shot.

Get the 20D or 30D and stick with Canon since you have Canon glass. Both lenses will work fine, they just end up with different equivalent focal lengths.

 

There's just not that much difference between Canon/Nikon bodies at a given market point.

Yes, resample the image to 250 ppi at the final print size.

It's always the same when questions like this come up...you need this, no you need that. This beats that, no that beats this.

 

How far you can enlarge a given "format" (MP + sensor size or film type + frame size) depends greatly on subject, viewing distance, artistic intent, lens, shooting technique, and post processing/printing technique.

 

It also depends on what your target audience will accept, which is typically far less demanding than is assumed. People just do not "see" prints the way photographers comparing systems do. Most viewers will find an image beautiful or attractive because of qualities that, for the most part, come through even at lower resolutions. True, sharper and more detailed prints do have more impact, but that's not to say that prints from "lesser" configurations do not have any impact or value.

 

So what's the answer to your question? It depends.

 

Shopping for a camera and need a better answer? OK...a 6 MP DSLR (on most subjects with good lens and technique and post processing) can meet the criterea you've set.

"Danny, you think it is appropriate for you to be spouting out, "We can only know how to love and treat another by looking at how we love and treat ourselves." when you're referring to people you don't even know and calling them incompetent?"

 

WTF are you talking about? I've never said such a thing on photo.net. What, putting words in my mouth again? Didn't you learn the first time?

 

"Well, it does show consistency with your character - lots of character attacks but nothing on topic. . ."

 

Want to talk character attacks? Let's go back to the thread where I posted 10D images that were sharper and more detailed than your hobbled 20D images, and you flipped out and started accusing me of using "extreme lossy compression" to ruin your image. (Even though anyone and everyone could go to your web page and see it was exact.)

 

"Have I ever taken yours or anyone else image then post it on my site and then completely misuse or misinterpret it?"

 

You've constantly taken other people's words out of context and misused/misrepresented their position. So do not start lecturing me on fair use.

 

"For instance you take full liberal use of my pics without even asking me, so that you can use ISO 400 speed film to compare to ISO 100 speed DSLR."

 

I've always picked images from my collection at the same ISO. Try again....

 

"Then you incompetently state DOF difference to be lack of sharpness or JPEG artifacting as grain?"

 

You're the one who is incompetent when it comes to such things.

 

"BTW, what's with the constant apologies for, does your conscience feel guilty hijacking another thread again?"

 

Oh, poor baby Les. He wanted to have a thread all to himself where he could spout his theories. How dare big bad Daniel come in and challenge his theories....

 

Guess what Les, this is a public board. If you don't want to have your pet theories challenged then don't post them.

 

***

 

"I can't believe that this pissing contest is still going. Just for the record, the "Resolution King?" comparison posted above by Daniel clearly shows the film image to have far more resolution, although it is not as clean or sharp appearing as the digital image. The latter is totally lacking in surface texture."

 

Apparently you're not looking at the same images I posted....

"Oh yeah, you have the magical 10D that can grow its sensor . . . ;-)"

 

You do realize that everyone who reads the post and views the images understands what I've done. I've just compared 10D sensor level technology to 35mm film on a square mm basis rather than frame vs. frame. It's a perfectly valid answer to the question "What if the frame sizes were equal?"

 

When your only response is to try and horse laugh the comparison, all you do is prove to everyone that you don't have a valid argument, that you know the test proves what I say it proves, and that you're nothing more than a horses...fill in the blank.

 

"BTW, I do have the 1Ds MKII images and it is interesting that it doesn't outresolve even the 4,000dpi scan of 35mm Velvia, much less the 5,400dpi scan."

 

You are a liar. Let me repeat that for everyone to read and see. YOU ARE A LIAR. You have been claiming that you would "get around" to posting 35mm vs. 1Ds mkII crops for months. Every time you make this claim I've asked: where are the images? Has never happened. My guess is that if it does happen, you will have hobbled the 1Ds in some way so that film comes out ahead, the same way your 20D images were but a fraction of the quality that could be expected from a 20D, which I proved.

 

"what happened to the 3MP D30 outresolving Imacon scanned Provia 100F? Or what about that other link you posted about the 6MP 10D (your DSLR) outresolving a Provia 100F scanned by a multithousand $$$ scanner?"

 

Again: YOU ARE A LIAR. Nobody has ever made the claims you put in their mouths. This fight started because I tried calling you on that when it came to Reichmann, a man who has achieved more in photography than you could ever hope to.

 

"To clarify for you, Daniel's attachment is based on him shooting only a portion of the target and believes that directly correlates to what the resulting resolution would be if his 10D's sensor were to magically grow to the size of 35mm film."

 

Don't misrepresent it. It's not a matter of "belief". I placed my 35mm body on a tripod, framed the map in the viewfinder, put my 10D on the tripod *without moving it*, and shot.

 

It is exactly what the image would look like if the 10D sensor were full frame, and is an exact comparison of 10D vs. 35mm on a square mm vs. square mm basis.

 

"In his conclusions, he is essentially stating that the Canon D60 has the same resolution as 4000 ppi scanned Fuji Velvia 50 *at the surfaces of the respective media*. Got that? That's not overall, that's millimeter by millimeter at the film/sensor surface."

 

Which is exactly what my test shows! Why then don't you concede the point and validity of the test instead of mocking it?

 

"Don't come here projecting your presumptions because as you now carefully back peddal you have realized that I've made no such representations of broad generalization of "better image"."

 

What a hypocrit. How funny to see you lecture someone else on how to debate and behave in an Internet forum.

"so an alternative, depending on the situation, is to focus using the central focus point (then optionally shifting to "manual" focus mode so the focus does not change), then recompose, let the IS settle, then shoot."

 

Just move AF off the shutter and onto another button. Not sure what CF it is on the 5D, but it has got to be there. Best configuration with USM lenses, especially when used with the center AF point. You never have to think about "manual" vs. "auto" focus again, you just naturally use the right one for the shot.

If you find yourself shooting low light more often, get the f/2.8 IS.

 

If you find yourself wishing you had additional reach for wildlife more often, get the f/4's.

 

One stop is not THAT big of a difference on DSLR's with their clean high ISO performance and exceptional software cleanup (tools like Noise Ninja do more for digital, for which they have dedicated masks, than for grain). That said, if you're always shooting indoor events and will only end up using the 300 a couple times a year, put your money where it benefits you most.

New 10D in box? I would pick the 10D.

 

* Better RAW buffer (9 frames vs. 5).

 

* Better body.

 

* Better user interface. I would much rather have the rear control wheel and the ability to move AF off the shutter release for full time manual override with USM lenses.

 

You're not going to see much of a difference between the sensors, 6 vs. 8 MP in an APS sensor is a non-issue. I would think the noise performance would be better on the 350D since it is on the 20D, but it's possible the sensors in the 350D are slightly lower performance in this regard. (When it was the 300D and the 10D people noticed that they were not identical sensors, and the 10D did a bit better with noise and long exposures.) Either way the difference will not be huge if it's noticeable at all.